While waiting for security detail to fetch us from Hotel Warwick’s rain-soaked lobby, The Diplomatic Courier met a young Iranian journalist working in New York for a British outlet. Careful to hide his Persian features from the stream of Ahmadinejad’s bearded, brown-suited “thugs” filtering by, our colleague sat down, raised a newspaper to eye level, and continued narrating his contentious relationship with Tehran.
Just as he was detailing the paranoid manner in which the Iranian government handles the press – after we asked why the location of the press lunch was kept secret until the morning of, and why we were issued security clearance codes along with our invitation – one of the beards leaned in and asked in Farsi if he were “part of the team.”
Moments later, another beard directed us to the check-in desk, where a bazaar-like line formed: those who had been issued codes were escorted to a neighboring corridor – manned by beardless, U.S. Government-mandated security detail, irritable from the mounting logistical confusion – while code-less colleagues bartered with security. Finally, the guards were given the signal to send us up a backdoor maintenance elevator to the dining room, at which point we realized our British friend had been turned away.
Following an exceedingly long (and delicious) lunch in the tradition of Iranian press conferences, journalists were called into the long, narrow briefing room to add their names and affiliations to the questions list. Sound technicians briefed the crowd on translation devices, and the stage was set.
Ahmadinejad entered from the head of the room with a coterie of advisors and close associates. He dressed simply and humbly, portraying himself as a man of the people who has no need for fancy suits. It has been a successful tactic for him in Iran: his rural, modest background, populist platform, and anti-American rhetoric have garnered support from among the lower socioeconomic classes and led to his victory in the 2005 Presidential election. Before that, his doctorate degree in civil engineering and traffic transportation planning led to his selection as Mayor of Tehran, a position considered a springboard to the Iranian Presidency; his devoted Twelver Shi'ism gained him the blessing and support of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
In a brief opening statement that plagiarized his speech at the UN's podium a day before, he poetically derided the very slim minority of unqualified powers controlling the world before confidently announcing that “manmade frontiers and borders will collapse soon.” On that note, he opened the floor for questions.
The majority of queries centered on Tehran’s nuclear program. On enrichment, he declared a renewed willingness to halt such activity in return for sufficient 20 percent uranium to fuel the country’s medical reactors. As to which countries would provide a steady enough supply of uranium to end home-grown enrichment, he said Iran would accept a deal with anyone, be they from the United States or Latin America. Indeed, given the growing friendship between Iranian leaders and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and Russia's promises last year to help the Latin American country build its first nuclear power station, it would seem that the trilateral ties here may involve more than just oil and natural gas.
Regarding the emergant policy of relocating nuclear facilities underground, he argued the move was rooted in safety concerns: all countries want secure nuclear installations, in line with safety standards of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). When one has right of enrichment, he continued, they should have the right to choose the location. Now on the defensive, but keeping his composure, the doctor lectured that the only way to resolve disagreements on such controversial issues was a solid commitment to logic and law -- a claim IAEA inspectors might find disingenuous, after having been denied full access (in line with IAEA protocol) to Tehran’s nuclear facilities for years.
Pressed about the origins and effects of one such controversial issue, the Stuxnet computer virus that disrupted Iranian enrichment activities in late 2010, he curtly replied that the centrifuges suffered “no sustainable damage because of our able experts who mitigated damage quickly.” When asked who the Iranian government believed may have been responsible for the attack, he unhelpfully replied that “the culprits are those who are against Iran's nuclear capabilities.”
Turning away from nuclear issues for a moment, a reporter asked the host whether he would support a “hotline” with the US to avert potentially disastrous misunderstandings in the Persian Gulf. He proposed a simple solution, namely "for the foreign forces to leave the Persian Gulf. There is no need in the Persian Gulf for the presence of the NATO force. Nations of the region are fully capable of establishing and providing their own security."
On Israel and Palestine, he seemed uninterested for the moment on the issue of statehood. In his view, the UN Charter’s clear enunciation of each state’s right to self-determination is more important, and he seemed to dismiss the notion of holding negotiations over such an inalienable right.
However, when the issue of Syria's bloody revolution came up, his tone changed. The focus was no longer the right to self-determination, but rather about how states (Turkey) must not involve themselves in the affairs of other nations. While he had framed other Arab Spring uprisings in a positive light, as the beginning of an “enormous wave” against U.S. hegemony that “will engulf the U.S. and Europe” eventually, he spoke about Syria in more guarded terms. Refusing to address Iran's role in the Syrian crackdown, notably the involvement of Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops, he merely expressed regret for any loss of life and emphasized that “reforms” must come from the people, rather than from “foreign meddling.”
Perhaps the most compelling question of the afternoon – and the answer most symbolic of the impenetrably opaque regime – concerned the power brokers behind Iran’s nuclear program. Asked to clarify for western governments whether the executive branch or the Supreme Leader makes such decisions, Mr. Ahmadinejad paused briefly before asking, “what difference does it make in Western capitals and governments? Iran’s nuclear ambitions will continue to be clear and transparent. The government decides on these things. Our constitution is quite transparent. Besides, the principal decision makers in Iran is the people.”
Photo: Majid/Getty Images Europe
a global affairs media network
An Afternoon with Ahmadinejad
October 2, 2011
While waiting for security detail to fetch us from Hotel Warwick’s rain-soaked lobby, The Diplomatic Courier met a young Iranian journalist working in New York for a British outlet. Careful to hide his Persian features from the stream of Ahmadinejad’s bearded, brown-suited “thugs” filtering by, our colleague sat down, raised a newspaper to eye level, and continued narrating his contentious relationship with Tehran.
Just as he was detailing the paranoid manner in which the Iranian government handles the press – after we asked why the location of the press lunch was kept secret until the morning of, and why we were issued security clearance codes along with our invitation – one of the beards leaned in and asked in Farsi if he were “part of the team.”
Moments later, another beard directed us to the check-in desk, where a bazaar-like line formed: those who had been issued codes were escorted to a neighboring corridor – manned by beardless, U.S. Government-mandated security detail, irritable from the mounting logistical confusion – while code-less colleagues bartered with security. Finally, the guards were given the signal to send us up a backdoor maintenance elevator to the dining room, at which point we realized our British friend had been turned away.
Following an exceedingly long (and delicious) lunch in the tradition of Iranian press conferences, journalists were called into the long, narrow briefing room to add their names and affiliations to the questions list. Sound technicians briefed the crowd on translation devices, and the stage was set.
Ahmadinejad entered from the head of the room with a coterie of advisors and close associates. He dressed simply and humbly, portraying himself as a man of the people who has no need for fancy suits. It has been a successful tactic for him in Iran: his rural, modest background, populist platform, and anti-American rhetoric have garnered support from among the lower socioeconomic classes and led to his victory in the 2005 Presidential election. Before that, his doctorate degree in civil engineering and traffic transportation planning led to his selection as Mayor of Tehran, a position considered a springboard to the Iranian Presidency; his devoted Twelver Shi'ism gained him the blessing and support of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
In a brief opening statement that plagiarized his speech at the UN's podium a day before, he poetically derided the very slim minority of unqualified powers controlling the world before confidently announcing that “manmade frontiers and borders will collapse soon.” On that note, he opened the floor for questions.
The majority of queries centered on Tehran’s nuclear program. On enrichment, he declared a renewed willingness to halt such activity in return for sufficient 20 percent uranium to fuel the country’s medical reactors. As to which countries would provide a steady enough supply of uranium to end home-grown enrichment, he said Iran would accept a deal with anyone, be they from the United States or Latin America. Indeed, given the growing friendship between Iranian leaders and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and Russia's promises last year to help the Latin American country build its first nuclear power station, it would seem that the trilateral ties here may involve more than just oil and natural gas.
Regarding the emergant policy of relocating nuclear facilities underground, he argued the move was rooted in safety concerns: all countries want secure nuclear installations, in line with safety standards of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). When one has right of enrichment, he continued, they should have the right to choose the location. Now on the defensive, but keeping his composure, the doctor lectured that the only way to resolve disagreements on such controversial issues was a solid commitment to logic and law -- a claim IAEA inspectors might find disingenuous, after having been denied full access (in line with IAEA protocol) to Tehran’s nuclear facilities for years.
Pressed about the origins and effects of one such controversial issue, the Stuxnet computer virus that disrupted Iranian enrichment activities in late 2010, he curtly replied that the centrifuges suffered “no sustainable damage because of our able experts who mitigated damage quickly.” When asked who the Iranian government believed may have been responsible for the attack, he unhelpfully replied that “the culprits are those who are against Iran's nuclear capabilities.”
Turning away from nuclear issues for a moment, a reporter asked the host whether he would support a “hotline” with the US to avert potentially disastrous misunderstandings in the Persian Gulf. He proposed a simple solution, namely "for the foreign forces to leave the Persian Gulf. There is no need in the Persian Gulf for the presence of the NATO force. Nations of the region are fully capable of establishing and providing their own security."
On Israel and Palestine, he seemed uninterested for the moment on the issue of statehood. In his view, the UN Charter’s clear enunciation of each state’s right to self-determination is more important, and he seemed to dismiss the notion of holding negotiations over such an inalienable right.
However, when the issue of Syria's bloody revolution came up, his tone changed. The focus was no longer the right to self-determination, but rather about how states (Turkey) must not involve themselves in the affairs of other nations. While he had framed other Arab Spring uprisings in a positive light, as the beginning of an “enormous wave” against U.S. hegemony that “will engulf the U.S. and Europe” eventually, he spoke about Syria in more guarded terms. Refusing to address Iran's role in the Syrian crackdown, notably the involvement of Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops, he merely expressed regret for any loss of life and emphasized that “reforms” must come from the people, rather than from “foreign meddling.”
Perhaps the most compelling question of the afternoon – and the answer most symbolic of the impenetrably opaque regime – concerned the power brokers behind Iran’s nuclear program. Asked to clarify for western governments whether the executive branch or the Supreme Leader makes such decisions, Mr. Ahmadinejad paused briefly before asking, “what difference does it make in Western capitals and governments? Iran’s nuclear ambitions will continue to be clear and transparent. The government decides on these things. Our constitution is quite transparent. Besides, the principal decision makers in Iran is the people.”
Photo: Majid/Getty Images Europe
